I like reading a Cee Bowerman book – there’s always something fascinating going on. The plot in Home Forever is good and solid. The writing style feels not quite yet established but is still good. On researching, I found the original publication date was 03/05/2019. There were some unhappy readers, and I read through some of their equally unhappy reviews. There was a theme in the 1- and 2-star reviews: a lack of good editing, missing MC involvement, misspelled words, changes in POV, too long/wordy, character name changes, grammar errors, typos.
One of the things I find impressive is that the book was reedited and rereleased in July 2020. It seems that many of the issues pointed out have been corrected, although there are a few remaining “oopsies.” Happily, it appears the book was indeed reedited. I did not read the initial publication, but there is the presence of an editorial hand in this release. The plot is smooth, unwinding in a way that keeps a reader invested and motivated to keep reading. The MC involvement is definitely here, and the Texas Knights seem like a good motorcycle club – the brotherhood is tight and while we don’t have a lot of MC interaction, it is an important backdrop to this character-driven story.
There are still grammar errors, one in particular that is a peccadillo that I do not like reading: it’s the sit/set grammar rule. “Sit” is used for animate objects (people, animals sit). “Set” is used for inanimate objects (bottles, boxes set). That’s the rule and it’s violated time and again throughout the book. For instance:
“She…picked up the bottle and took a long swig before she sat it down.” This should read, “…before she set it down.”
Some boxes have arrived, and Lisa says, “…we can sit them out back.” That should read, “…we can set them out back.”
Carlie is talking about money: “…all the rest sat in an account…” That should be, “…all the rest set in an account.”
“I sat the water on the table…” Water is an inanimate object; this should read: “I set the water on the table…”
There are other instances, but these get the point across.
Another error in grammar is the use of subject pronouns (I, he, she) for object pronouns (me, him, her). The reverse is also true: object pronouns are sometimes used for subject pronouns. In the vernacular, when characters are speaking for instance, this can be fairly common, as in “Her and me are going to the movie.” This is incorrect grammar, but pretty common in informal speech. During narration, however, correct grammar should be used. For instance:
“…I had been on double dates with she and her boyfriend…” The pronoun, “she,” is a subject pronoun used as an object, and it should be “her.” This should read, “…with her and her boyfriend.” A rule of thumb (in this example) is to remove what follows the first pronoun and see how the sentence reads: “…I had been on double dates with she…” That’s just wrong…and it sounds wrong, too.
“She had moved Joe and I from Kansas to Texas…” Here, the subject pronoun, “I,” is used as an object and is incorrect. This should read, “She had moved Joe and me from Kansas to Texas…”
“Sam and Jade were now surrounding Kari and I.” Here, a subject pronoun ("I”) is used as an object. This should read: “…were now surrounding Kari and me.” To hear how wrong this is, remove the “Kari and” part of the phrase and listen to what remains: “Sam and Jade were now surrounding I.” Weird. It sounds—and is—wrong.
“…to the hospital with Joe and I.” A subject pronoun (“I”) is used as an object pronoun in a prepositional phrase. This should read, “…to the hospital with Joe and me.”
There are other examples of this subject/object pronoun issue, but these are enough.
Additional issues include:
The rule behind using “who” vs. “that” is also broken: “…someone that knows somebody.” While CMOS (Chicago Manual of Style) and the Associated Press Stylebook and Webster’s dictionary allow the use of “what” to refer to people, it’s groups of people, not one person. The sentence I reference here is about one person (“someone”) and the word, “who,” would be the better choice: “…someone who knows somebody.” To use “that” instead needs something like this: “…the people that know somebody.” Get the difference? Yeah. Me, too.
I believe this is a typo: “Not much to talk abou.” There’s a missing “t” in “about.”
A sentence has one verb too many: “Watching Bill waste away as the cancer took him had brought Sam and his siblings grew even closer.” I think this is an editing error where the sentence was changed, but a part of the initial sentence (“grew”) remains. This should read, “…brought Sam and his siblings even closer.” The word, “grew,” is superfluous and stops a reader’s momentum.
A preposition is missing: “He checked for traffic again and headed Sam’s direction.” That should read, “…headed in Sam’s direction.”
Punctuation is missing here: “You…hate cats, Clairee” Uncle Joe put his two cents in. The period is missing after “Clairee.” That should read, “You…hate cats, Clairee.” (followed by the action tag.)
The book is still too long with too much repetition. Conversations—and I think Ms. Bowerman’s more recent dialogues are some of the best in books today—are overly long here. People rarely speak in paragraphs unless making a long and drawn-out point (which we all do at times). Here, however, the conversations are often in paragraphs packed with rehashed information we already know. Here’s one example:
“I want to call Chandler. See if he can get the skinny on some plates. I saw two cars around the bank after you had your thing. The Kansas one and another just seemed out of place. One of them was also on the road when we left the store. Small town, but not that small, you know?”
We’ve read all this before, including the comment about Rojo being a small town, but not. This can be a conundrum for a writer. Readers already know what a character in the book may not yet know. In this book, there’s a lot of this type of reiteration. There are several solutions to getting the intel to a character without rehashing what the writer has already told us. An editor should have caught these and offered some suggestions (IMHO).
Finally, I’m not a fan of first-person POV. It feels false to me. And there’s never any suspense. If we’re reading in a character’s POV, then the character is okay and has gotten through whatever terrible trials and tribulation are coming their way, and have lived to tell us the tale. But switching back and forth between first and third person POV is distracting in the extreme. Pick one POV and stick with it. If we need to be a part of multiple characters’ thoughts, then consider third person subjective omniscient (and for goodness’ sake: follow the rules – otherwise, there’s too much head-hopping!) or third person objective omniscient (which is like a movie camera—showing, not telling—and no peeking at a character’s thoughts, but facial expressions and body language are fair game). When written well, these two third person POVs are insanely delightful to read!
I rated this book 3.5-stars and rounded up because the storyline is good and holds a reader’s attention. I like the characters, too. Sam is head over heels in love with Carlie, and she is the same. The second chance trope is done well, and the supporting characters help support the two main characters’ second chance. I’ve read a lot of Ms. Bowerman’s books, but not the Texas Kings series. I’ll definitely keep reading this series, too.